Worshippers merit protection, but so do church protesters

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects basic rights of expression, including freedom of religion and speech. Those two rights sometimes come into conflict, and a new Missouri law faces the difficult challenge of balancing protection of both rights.

The "House of Worship Protection Act" was passed on the final day of the legislative session, signed by the governor and went into effect Aug. 28. But two groups that regularly demonstrate outside of Catholic churches on behalf of people who have been sexually abused by clergy are trying to stop the law, which they are afraid will chill their rights.

The act - which makes it a misdemeanor (or felony on the third offense) to disturb "a building used for religious purposes by using profanity, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise ... within the house of worship or so close to the building that services are disturbed" - was sponsored by Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter.

Mayer said he was aware of some protests in other states that resulted in criminal trespass charges. Although he cited no Missouri examples, Mayer said he wanted the law because it would protect "the First Amendment rights of the individuals desiring to worship."

Members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and Voice of the Faithful often stand outside Catholic churches with information about their organizations and invitations to anyone who may have been abused by clergy to use their services and learn their rights. They carry signs identifying who they are and are generally polite and quiet.

Members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., also stand outside churches with signs, often with crudely drawn pictures of sexual acts and condemnations of the church, community and even the nation. While they are not generally loud, they often make those attending the service, or funeral, uncomfortable.

The first group took its concerns to court, saying the new law is vaguely worded, open to selective enforcement and will interfere with their rights. A judge declined to block the law. The group intends to take it further.

We agree with Mayer's interest in protecting the right to worship, but we see the rights of individuals and organizations to express their opinions as equally valuable.

The lawsuit may eventually prevail. Then the challenge will be to balance both those rights, with a law that clearly defines when one is overstepping the other.